Was Israel Schwartz a form of Patsy

[Michael W Richards]

I'm not sure what you're getting at? While I agree that language is used differently between people, and its use changes over time, etc, I'm not sure how that applies to the inherent ambiguity of indefinite pronouns? They're called indefinite because they do not specifically identify the referent, and that has to be understood through the context. Unfortunately, the context we have does not disambiguate her statement, meaning she could be referring to the couple or she could be referring to the more "global they", meaning "people say". And what her intentions were with that statement are lost to us because we can not ask her to clarify her meaning. And we cannot just decide on one of them, as it's a coin toss as to whether or not we guess right, leaving us at an open ended point in the analysis of her statement. And it's a critical fork in that road, as which interpretation one considers greatly changes the conclusion one gets to (sometimes it doesn't matter, which is nice, but in this instance it does make a big difference).

- Jeff

I was suggesting that the choice of words is not necessarily the point, the content of what is being said is. And that it reveals something of the persons characteristics. Using Fanny to illustrate...."nearly the whole time". She is referring to a 30 minute block of time, 12:30 to 1am. She really intends to convey the message that she wouldn't have missed much going on in the street at that time. Quantifying exactly how much time was at the door and how much was not wasn't the goal. Quantifying the exact times of her vigil during that time isn't her goal. Both those things are her goal when she speaks about standing at her door the last 10 minutes of the hour, at what time she saw Goldstein, and when she went indoors. Its what the words intend to convey based upon what kind of profile you can get of the speaker, using the other statements as comparison.

[Michael W Richards]

Correcting errors and misconceptions isn't petty, it's the point of research. Petty is finding out there is another meaning for a word and not acknowledging the new nuance it gives to the subject.

Overlooking the entire context of the point being made is though. You've "corrected" nothing, you had your say is all. Which is what people can do here. Doesn't mean that what they say necessarily has value,... but why fence in the ideas. I would think that if anything is ever to get satisfactorily addressed to the majorities content about these cases, its going to be from a variety of sourced materials. A connective string vs a smoking gun in a hand. So you can perceive what you like. When that conflicts with known evidence, Ill probably point that out. Just like people point out Im in a minority here with my beliefs. They all start with the known evidence though. Perhaps interpreted differently than is the convention.

[JeffHamm]

I was suggesting that the choice of words is not necessarily the point, the content of what is being said is. And that it reveals something of the persons characteristics. Using Fanny to illustrate...."nearly the whole time". She is referring to a 30 minute block of time, 12:30 to 1am. She really intends to convey the message that she wouldn't have missed much going on in the street at that time. Quantifying exactly how much time was at the door and how much was not wasn't the goal. Quantifying the exact times of her vigil during that time isn't her goal. Both those things are her goal when she speaks about standing at her door the last 10 minutes of the hour, at what time she saw Goldstein, and when she went indoors. Its what the words intend to convey based upon what kind of profile you can get of the speaker, using the other statements as comparison.

Ah, ok, I didn't realize you were talking about a different aspect of her statement and not the one I was specifically referring to, which was the specific meaning, or content if you will, of "they". We're both talking about the same concept though, the content of her statement, but we get to that through the interpretation of her specific words. In the case of "they", the content intended is ambiguous, and other words like "nearly" are as well. The phrase "nearly the whole time" is non-specific because it is subjective. It's also based upon a recollection, as are most witness statements. Pending on an individual's use of language, her same behaviour with regards of "door standing", could be phrased "much of the time between..." or "I was there on and off over the times between ..." or "I went out a few times between ..." and so forth, all equally applicable phrasings, with their choice possibily reflecting various biases in how language is used to convey the idea that she was there intermittently. Some people will be fairly accurate in their descriptions, some will tend to inflate things, some will understate, not to deceive but simply because of how they use language.

Because her statement indicates she was there some of the time, but not all of it, we know she will have seen some things but not all things that occurred.

- Jeff

[Michael W Richards]

Ah, ok, I didn't realize you were talking about a different aspect of her statement and not the one I was specifically referring to, which was the specific meaning, or content if you will, of "they". We're both talking about the same concept though, the content of her statement, but we get to that through the interpretation of her specific words. In the case of "they", the content intended is ambiguous, and other words like "nearly" are as well. The phrase "nearly the whole time" is non-specific because it is subjective. It's also based upon a recollection, as are most witness statements. Pending on an individual's use of language, her same behaviour with regards of "door standing", could be phrased "much of the time between..." or "I was there on and off over the times between ..." or "I went out a few times between ..." and so forth, all equally applicable phrasings, with their choice possibily reflecting various biases in how language is used to convey the idea that she was there intermittently. Some people will be fairly accurate in their descriptions, some will tend to inflate things, some will understate, not to deceive but simply because of how they use language.

Because her statement indicates she was there some of the time, but not all of it, we know she will have seen some things but not all things that occurred.

- Jeff

Fair enough Jeff, but this particular instance is a very good way to make my point....Fanny says "nearly" the whole time, and then later gives us a specified time and duration at the door from 12:50-1:00am. This, to me, suggests her "nearly the whole" is really about the 20 minutes she wasn't continuously at the door, because she later establishes a period with a specific time, a sighting at a specific time, and a specific time she went back indoors. What she really meant...vs...what she actually said and the words she used to say it.

[JeffHamm]

Fair enough Jeff, but this particular instance is a very good way to make my point....Fanny says "nearly" the whole time, and then later gives us a specified time and duration at the door from 12:50-1:00am. This, to me, suggests her "nearly the whole" is really about the 20 minutes she wasn't continuously at the door, because she later establishes a period with a specific time, a sighting at a specific time, and a specific time she went back indoors. What she really meant...vs...what she actually said and the words she used to say it.

Sure, but as gets discussed on many threads, specific times given in statements are not the same as someone specifically looking at the time, they must be treated with caution. This is, again, not necessarily due to someone being deceitful, but because of the necessisty to somehow convey time despite not having actually looked at a clock, etc. Some people will phrase things with qualifications (like "about x:xx o'clock" or "around x:xx o'clock"), others will not. We often look to see on what basis a given time is made, such as Lawende stating they got up to leave the club at 1:30 by his watch (or the club clock, I forget which), after that, he estimates they waited for 5 minutes for the rain to stop while Levy estimates 3-4 minutes. Already we can see time estimates diverging between two witnesses.

Generally, it is probably best to consider most of the stated times as being associated with a fairly wide margin of error, narrowing it somewhat for those who had a reason to be aware of the time (i.e. those heading to work) and more for those who actually based their time on a clock, and further for those whose job it was to note the time of the events (police). Then, taking all of the statements from all of the witnesses, see what combination generally fits. Mortimer, I believe, states that after she went inside she heard a pony cart, Deimshutz states he noted the time from one of the clocks, etc. This is entirely consistent with her going back inside shortly before 1:00, at which point Deimshutz's cart passes.

Other events, such the men running to seek a police officer, also could not have happened while she was at her door, and she reports hearing a commotion after she went inside, so again, those events happen after she went inside, also consistent with her going in shortly before 1:00. The events with Schwartz are not of long duration, and given she was not out the entire time, could easily have occurred without her knowledge.

Anyway, I realize you've been going over this with others, and I'm just rehashing old ground because I've digressed, but my main point is that time, both stated times and stated durations, are a prime example of how language use differs from one person to another and how something that appears specific really should be viewed as less so.

- Jeff

[c.d.]

>> Again, too bad they didnt show such confidence in him at the Inquest into Liz Strides cause of death.<<

Since we don't know why he wasn't there, we can't know that they didn't "show confidence in him" at the time of the inquest.

You hit the nail on the head there, doctor. Or as they say in court "assumes facts not in evidence."

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

You hit the nail on the head there, doctor. Or as they say in court "assumes facts not in evidence."

c.d.

If a tree falls in the forest and no-one hears it fall...the results are what matters here, and the evidence is there in the historical records cd. Israel and his entire witness statement are not recorded as being part of the Liz Stride Inquest in any format, nor is there any mention of any witness claiming such an event occurred there in the records. Mentioning support for it in some police publication or memo a few weeks later, only reveals that particular officers, or publications, opinion.

The creation of grey areas when not required impedes progress cd, why put variables that are only within the possible, not probable, into any mix in these or any cases to study.

[Abby Normal]

so after all this no evidence schwartz was lying or there was any conspriacy-and at the end of the day all we have is just a bunch of witnesses off on there times and a dead women found clutching breath mints. and some very creative fiction.

[Joshua Rogan]

If a tree falls in the forest and no-one hears it fall...

....there's probably a conspiracy involved.

[Michael W Richards]

so after all this no evidence schwartz was lying or there was any conspriacy-and at the end of the day all we have is just a bunch of witnesses off on there times and a dead women found clutching breath mints. and some very creative fiction.

Actually, presumption of Israel Schwartz status as a viable entity in the question of her death is something that first needs to be proven before being disproven. And which witnesses had incorrect times inadvertently and which had them intentionally is something that isn't proven either.

Creative is what Liz Strides Canonical inclusion is, and any continuing belief in what is a non-entity by the recorded evidence.

Like in the Watchman movie when Rorshach says to his fellow inmates...." Im not in here with you,.. you're in here with ME". This isn't about me proving Israel didn't matter...its obvious within the known evidence of the Inquest, he didn't matter in that proceeding. Its about you first proving that he did despite the existing contradictory evidence for that conclusion.

The fantasy that has spellbound so many for so many years, has so hypnotized generations, so they no longer see that their beliefs are just founded on sand.

[Abby Normal]

....there's probably a conspiracy involved.

lol. now that's funny

[c.d.]

If a tree falls in the forest and no-one hears it fall...the results are what matters here, and the evidence is there in the historical records cd. Israel and his entire witness statement are not recorded as being part of the Liz Stride Inquest in any format, nor is there any mention of any witness claiming such an event occurred there in the records. Mentioning support for it in some police publication or memo a few weeks later, only reveals that particular officers, or publications, opinion.

The creation of grey areas when not required impedes progress cd, why put variables that are only within the possible, not probable, into any mix in these or any cases to study.

Ok, Michael, you have convinced me. So we can now throw out statements from Schwartz AND Fanny Mortimer since NEITHER OF THEM appeared at the inquest. Got it.

c.d.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Just a quick question, did The Arbiter Frient write about the murder? Since it happened on their doorstep? I've had a root round but can't find anything. Thought you guys would know.

Thanks,

[Joshua Rogan]

Just a quick question, did The Arbiter Frient write about the murder? Since it happened on their doorstep? I've had a root round but can't find anything. Thought you guys would know.

Thanks,

Yes, this old thread has a translation of the 5th October issue relating to the murder;

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/ripper-discussions/victims/elizabeth-stride/6778-arbeter-fraint-s-take

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Yes, this old thread has a translation of the 5th October issue relating to the murder;

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/ripper-discussions/victims/elizabeth-stride/6778-arbeter-fraint-s-take

Thanks Josh, that's exactly what I was after.